Sorry I've missed the blogosphere for a couple of weeks. Trust me, I miss it. There are so many things to rant and muse about. This is going to be a short post, just to update what I've been letting lurk in my brain.
First a musing. The Republican Primary contest. So enjoyable to watch the Republicans find their own candidates a bit nauseating. Whatever will they do? Wink, wink. I read a great article in Friday's Washington Post about how the Evangelical Christians, the Republicans most solid voting block, aren't excited about any of the Republican candidates for president, not at all surprising. Many expect this voting block to sit out the general election if Giuliani is the nominee because their one voting issue, abortion, will be a wash. It's just plain fun to watch this go down.
Now a ranting. Bush's veto of S-CHIP. I haven't fallen off the planet, but just haven't had the time to blog. Meanwhile, Bush has done the stupidest thing in his years as president (yes, I really feel that way). I'm so disgusted by the lies he's told to justify his position, and the outcome! To deny health care to millions (millions!!!!) of children. I'm truly sickened by it. So much so, I really can't write anything else. However, I do highly recommend reading this Paul Krugman's Op-Ed column on the issue.
Finally, I'll update on the baby situation. All is absolutely wonderful. I'm in the second trimester and most systems are functioning really well. Last week we had our sonogram and found out we're having a boy!!! I'm so excited. I really wanted a boy, but don't ask me to explain that. I think he's beautiful. Of course, seeing a black & white picture of him made by a contraption that uses sounds to create a picture is hardly the way to judge how beautiful he is, but trust me, he is wonderful. I'm feeling him move around more and more, which is so freaky and great.
I know many of you may have questions about lesbian pregnancy, like how did you do it and who's the daddy, etc. I'm inviting you to ask any and all questions and I will answer them in great detail in a future post. Please don't be shy. Bring it on.
Coffee tip: Get back to basics. Go buy some freshly roasted beans at a local coffee distributor. Get out the grinder and make yourself a fresh pot of coffee with freshly ground beans. Then sit back, sip and relax.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Monday, October 8, 2007
Coffee IS Good for You!
Recently, my partner decided to quit coffee, believing it is the culprit behind various maladies. As you would expect, quitting caused her great pains - headaches, fatigue, general feeling of daze. There's a school of thought that says if you have a caffeine high, you'll have a caffeine low and in order to be more even, you should quit the joe.I couldn't disagree more. Yes, coffee must be addictive. Otherwise, why would quitting be so hard, and why do I continue to crave coffee's sweet nectar? But according to many, many studies summarized in a WebMD article, coffee is darn good for you! I'm not going to question the wisdom of these studies. No other drug gets such great press. Bottom line is that there is great benefit to drinking at least two cups of regular coffee a day.
Coffee isn't just the substance that keeps you regular anymore. It reduces your chances of getting serious diseases such as Diabetes and Parkinson's. It also reduces your chances of getting certain cancers. According to researchers, it's the caffeine in coffee that makes it so good. Yes, we drinkers of the juice know that already. But it's the caffeine that boosts our chances of staying healthy. There is more caffeine is a cup of coffee than there is in soda or chocolate. And coffee doesn't have to have the crap that soda and chocolate have. Coffee is pure.
Even decaf coffee offers some benefit, but not nearly as much as the beloved caffeinated version. Hey, it's in Wikipedia! There's also bunches of antioxidants in coffee. We love antioxidants. So don't fret my friends. Drink some joe.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Coitus and the Law
I read an article in the Baltimore Sun the other day that just blew me away. There is a case before the Maryland Court of Appeals that is trying to decide if an act is rape if the sex was initially consented to, but then objected to later in the act. This blows my mind. Apparently, there is actual law that discusses various stages of sex and whether or not consent is needed throughout. I feel like I'm on some other planet.
When the lawmakers get together and write these laws, do any of them ever think it odd that this should even be decided by them? How many years will it be before a woman's right to consent is no longer decided by lawmakers? It's taken us this long to acknowledge that rape occurs, which implies that woman have a right to consent. But what I didn't realize until reading this article was that after a woman says "yes," she has to keep going until the man is finished. Sure, she can say "no" but the guy doesn't have to stop, and when he doesn't stop he's not raping her.
Help me understand how this happened. Help me understand how anyone ever felt entitled to write laws that govern when women can consent to sex and when they can't. Apparently, when a woman consents to sex, she's entered into a binding contract. What would happen if a man took a woman to court for not completing her obligation? "She said yes, and half-way through she wanted to stop which caused me duress. I'm suing for damages. She broke her contract." That's absurd, right? You know, I know it may be inconvenient to have to stop in the middle, but life is full of inconveniences.
Clearly, our laws still favor a man's right to sex. A woman, by her biological nature, is obligated to provide sex to a man, except under certain circumstances. You can say "no" and then the man has to respect that, but if you say "yes" you are fully obligated to follow through.
If the court doesn't rule in favor of changing the law, the only recourse will be the legislature. I'm having reflux here. The argument to keep the law the same will be to reduce the instances that woman will cry "rape" when, according to men, rape didn't occur. But our justice system should be able to discern a real rape. And frankly, that's just a fear tactic played on the feeble sensibilities of men who aren't sure they want their own sexual behavior to undergo scrutiny.
I hope the court will see fit to make the right decision on behalf of women.
Another topic - City Cafe in Mt. Vernon. I went there this morning to study and I bought a fresh squeezed orange juice ($2.95) and a bagel. After a while I decided to order some soup. When I went back to the counter, one of the staff was preparing more cups of fresh squeezed OJ. The City Cafe gets its fresh squeezed OJ from cartons of Tropicana Orange Juice - No Pulp. Hey, if you're going to lie about your product, maybe you should prepare it out of sight of the customers. Just a thought.
When the lawmakers get together and write these laws, do any of them ever think it odd that this should even be decided by them? How many years will it be before a woman's right to consent is no longer decided by lawmakers? It's taken us this long to acknowledge that rape occurs, which implies that woman have a right to consent. But what I didn't realize until reading this article was that after a woman says "yes," she has to keep going until the man is finished. Sure, she can say "no" but the guy doesn't have to stop, and when he doesn't stop he's not raping her.
Help me understand how this happened. Help me understand how anyone ever felt entitled to write laws that govern when women can consent to sex and when they can't. Apparently, when a woman consents to sex, she's entered into a binding contract. What would happen if a man took a woman to court for not completing her obligation? "She said yes, and half-way through she wanted to stop which caused me duress. I'm suing for damages. She broke her contract." That's absurd, right? You know, I know it may be inconvenient to have to stop in the middle, but life is full of inconveniences.
Clearly, our laws still favor a man's right to sex. A woman, by her biological nature, is obligated to provide sex to a man, except under certain circumstances. You can say "no" and then the man has to respect that, but if you say "yes" you are fully obligated to follow through.
If the court doesn't rule in favor of changing the law, the only recourse will be the legislature. I'm having reflux here. The argument to keep the law the same will be to reduce the instances that woman will cry "rape" when, according to men, rape didn't occur. But our justice system should be able to discern a real rape. And frankly, that's just a fear tactic played on the feeble sensibilities of men who aren't sure they want their own sexual behavior to undergo scrutiny.
I hope the court will see fit to make the right decision on behalf of women.
Another topic - City Cafe in Mt. Vernon. I went there this morning to study and I bought a fresh squeezed orange juice ($2.95) and a bagel. After a while I decided to order some soup. When I went back to the counter, one of the staff was preparing more cups of fresh squeezed OJ. The City Cafe gets its fresh squeezed OJ from cartons of Tropicana Orange Juice - No Pulp. Hey, if you're going to lie about your product, maybe you should prepare it out of sight of the customers. Just a thought.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Can we solve our marriage crisis?
This is the only place I can really rant. Believe it or not, some people don't like to hear me rant. I don't know why. I'm actually a little unprepared. I should really post my rants right when the mood hits me. But that's usually when I'm in my car with nothing but my thoughts to occupy me.
Let me go back and revisit some recent topics. Specifically, gay marriage in Maryland. You can go back and read my previous post on the topic. Now that the court has ruled against gay marriage, the issue, and the solution, falls back into the hands of us gay folks and our allies. After reading some of the analysis on the court case itself, I have to admit that I think we've pursued the wrong path from the beginning. I've always thought the gay marriage battle was premature. I've since altered that position, but not completely. It's premature for many of us who had no need to get married. But after being with my partner for over six years, and now that we're starting a family, the need for marriage laws is a much higher priority for me. I think that gays and lesbians who are arguing that pursuing gay marriage is premature ought to consider that their position is influenced by their current, probably stable, personal situation.
None-the-less, politically, it is clear that the will to give GLBT citizens equal access to marriage equality just doesn't exist. It doesn't exist anywhere, even in Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, the supreme court ruled in favor of gay families, but at least a slight majority of citizens disagreed with the ruling. Subsequently, the state legislature began a bloody battle of trying to change their constitution to specifically prohibit gay marriage. The effort failed, thankfully, in part to getting a new governor who didn't support the measure. And so gay marriage exists in one state of the union.
In many other states, gay marriage has been outright rejected, or ignored, and on occasion, "compromised" into something called civil unions. While Maryland has been able to defeat amendments to our state's constitution banning gay marriage, actually getting pro-gay marriage legislation passed is another matter altogether.
One newspaper article questioned the timing of the lawsuit. Apparently our Court of Appeals was pretty conservative, but two judges were nearing their mandated retirement. Just in time for our newly elected Democratic governor to appoint new ones. Most of us believe he'll appoint progressive judges to the court. With his wife being a judge, our governor has a pretty intimate knowledge of the candidate pool. Anyway, the question is, why not wait for this opportunity? It seems that a different set of judges would have ruled in our favor. No guarantees, obviously, but our chances would have been better. I've heard that our lobbying group, Equality Maryland, was frustrated at their lack of progress during the recent Republican administration and decided to take their legal battles to the court. I think the families who were a part of that lawsuit were counseled poorly. We've suffered a setback and I think it will take us a good amount of time to overcome it.
Let's consider the landscape. Our state is facing a $1.5 billion budget deficit that must be overcome in order to balance the budget, which is required by law. For years, long before our Republican governor came and went, legislators have been crying for structural changes in the budget to fix the bothersome deficit. O'Malley, newly elected governor, has decided to take it on. I don't like all his strategies (and I'll write about that some other time), but his effort is long overdue and really brave. Most importantly, it will take all the political muscle he can muster up. You see, the plan involves taxes, and lots of them. There will be very little room left in his legislative agenda for anything else. He will blow all his favors on getting his budget bills passed. Gay marriage will be so far off his radar screen, not to mention that of our legislature's, we don't have a snowball's chance in hell (I've always wanted to use that saying) of being successful this year.
How do you think our brave GLBT lobby will handle this situation? They're going to ignore it. This is our greatest downfall. We're going to act like there is nothing else as important as getting the right to marry. We're going to march into our legislator's office, piled with over 1,000 bills, and scream and yell about how we're being discriminated against and insist they drop everything to correct this injustice. That will be our first mistake. We won't look at the big picture. We'll act like our heads have been buried in the sand. Forget the deficit! I want to plan my wedding!
Listen, I want to get married. Believe me, I'm scared for my child and what obstacles Caroline and I will have to overcome being gay parents. But most people can't sympathize with my position. They don't understand, and during a 90-day legislative session, they don't have enough time to learn. What are we doing about it now? Before the fun begins? Where is the organizing of Equality Maryland? All they care about is their upcoming fundraiser. It doesn't cost much to start a letter-writing campaign. You've got a contact list, send an email. Our legislators need to start hearing from us now. But nope. Equality Maryland is more concerned about pulling off another great gig, and maybe we'll hear from them again in January.
Well, I'm going to write to my legislators. They need to hear from us. They need to know how marriage discrimination is affecting our everyday lives. I don't think we'll solve our marriage crisis this year, but if we could, we're getting a really slow start.
Let me go back and revisit some recent topics. Specifically, gay marriage in Maryland. You can go back and read my previous post on the topic. Now that the court has ruled against gay marriage, the issue, and the solution, falls back into the hands of us gay folks and our allies. After reading some of the analysis on the court case itself, I have to admit that I think we've pursued the wrong path from the beginning. I've always thought the gay marriage battle was premature. I've since altered that position, but not completely. It's premature for many of us who had no need to get married. But after being with my partner for over six years, and now that we're starting a family, the need for marriage laws is a much higher priority for me. I think that gays and lesbians who are arguing that pursuing gay marriage is premature ought to consider that their position is influenced by their current, probably stable, personal situation.
None-the-less, politically, it is clear that the will to give GLBT citizens equal access to marriage equality just doesn't exist. It doesn't exist anywhere, even in Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, the supreme court ruled in favor of gay families, but at least a slight majority of citizens disagreed with the ruling. Subsequently, the state legislature began a bloody battle of trying to change their constitution to specifically prohibit gay marriage. The effort failed, thankfully, in part to getting a new governor who didn't support the measure. And so gay marriage exists in one state of the union.
In many other states, gay marriage has been outright rejected, or ignored, and on occasion, "compromised" into something called civil unions. While Maryland has been able to defeat amendments to our state's constitution banning gay marriage, actually getting pro-gay marriage legislation passed is another matter altogether.
One newspaper article questioned the timing of the lawsuit. Apparently our Court of Appeals was pretty conservative, but two judges were nearing their mandated retirement. Just in time for our newly elected Democratic governor to appoint new ones. Most of us believe he'll appoint progressive judges to the court. With his wife being a judge, our governor has a pretty intimate knowledge of the candidate pool. Anyway, the question is, why not wait for this opportunity? It seems that a different set of judges would have ruled in our favor. No guarantees, obviously, but our chances would have been better. I've heard that our lobbying group, Equality Maryland, was frustrated at their lack of progress during the recent Republican administration and decided to take their legal battles to the court. I think the families who were a part of that lawsuit were counseled poorly. We've suffered a setback and I think it will take us a good amount of time to overcome it.
Let's consider the landscape. Our state is facing a $1.5 billion budget deficit that must be overcome in order to balance the budget, which is required by law. For years, long before our Republican governor came and went, legislators have been crying for structural changes in the budget to fix the bothersome deficit. O'Malley, newly elected governor, has decided to take it on. I don't like all his strategies (and I'll write about that some other time), but his effort is long overdue and really brave. Most importantly, it will take all the political muscle he can muster up. You see, the plan involves taxes, and lots of them. There will be very little room left in his legislative agenda for anything else. He will blow all his favors on getting his budget bills passed. Gay marriage will be so far off his radar screen, not to mention that of our legislature's, we don't have a snowball's chance in hell (I've always wanted to use that saying) of being successful this year.
How do you think our brave GLBT lobby will handle this situation? They're going to ignore it. This is our greatest downfall. We're going to act like there is nothing else as important as getting the right to marry. We're going to march into our legislator's office, piled with over 1,000 bills, and scream and yell about how we're being discriminated against and insist they drop everything to correct this injustice. That will be our first mistake. We won't look at the big picture. We'll act like our heads have been buried in the sand. Forget the deficit! I want to plan my wedding!
Listen, I want to get married. Believe me, I'm scared for my child and what obstacles Caroline and I will have to overcome being gay parents. But most people can't sympathize with my position. They don't understand, and during a 90-day legislative session, they don't have enough time to learn. What are we doing about it now? Before the fun begins? Where is the organizing of Equality Maryland? All they care about is their upcoming fundraiser. It doesn't cost much to start a letter-writing campaign. You've got a contact list, send an email. Our legislators need to start hearing from us now. But nope. Equality Maryland is more concerned about pulling off another great gig, and maybe we'll hear from them again in January.
Well, I'm going to write to my legislators. They need to hear from us. They need to know how marriage discrimination is affecting our everyday lives. I don't think we'll solve our marriage crisis this year, but if we could, we're getting a really slow start.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)